HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/81 AGENDA
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WEDNESDAY, JULY 22~_ 1981
4:00 P.M.
Call meeting to order
Roll Call - Board Members: Barton, Chairman, Payne, Ratty, Kelmar, Oberholzer
1. Approve minutes of regular meeting of June 24, 1981.
2. Scheduled Public Statements
3. Correspondence
Va) Letter from Rosedale Rio Bravo Water
Storage District dated June 29, 1981
regarding City's Master Spreading
Agreement.
/b) Letter dated July 13, 1981 and attach-
ments from George W. Nickel, .Jr. re~
garding Kern County Water Agency use
of City's 2800 acres.
c) Letter from Kern County Water Agency
dated July 15, 1981 including a copy
of Kern County Water Agency Comments
on City of Bakersfield Proposed Master
Spreading Agreement.
4. Request from stanley C. Hatch, special water attorney for hourly
rate increase. - FOR BOARD ACTION.
~/5. Proposed Water Board response to Olcese Water District letter dated
June 15, 1981 regarding outline of improvements to City's 2800
acres. - FOR BOARD ACTION.
6. Domestic Water Items.
7. Staff Comments
8. Board Comments
9. Adjournment
>. 7~ AGENDA
WE DNE S D~%Y,
4:00 P.M.
Call meeting to order ~ ~ ~.
Roll Call - Board Members: Ba Chairman, Payne, Ratty,
K~, Ob~r~ zer
1. Approve minutes of regulaf~%neetin~6f June 24, 1981.
2. Scheduled Publi~ Statements ~ ~ ~
3. Correspondence ~ ~--~ ~~-'
a) Letter from Rosedale Rio Bravo Water
Storage District dated June 29, 1981
regarding City's Mast~ Spreading
Agreeme~~ ~~ - ~~
~ Letter dated July 13, 1981 and attach- ~/~
ments from George W. Nickel, Jr. re-
garding Kern County Water Agency use
of City's 2800 acres. ~ ~ ~
c) Letter from Kern County Water Agency
dated July 15, 1981 including a copy
of Kern County Water Agency Cements
~.~ City of Bakersfield Proposed Master
. .,(~preading Agreement. ~A ~ ~ ~ ~
~~'~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ for houri
4. Request from Stanley C. Ha~h, special water attorney y
rate increase. - FOR BOA~ ACTION.__ ~ ~) ~ ~ ~ ~
5. Proposed Water Board response to Olcese Water District letter dated
June 15, 1981 regarding outline of improvements to City's 2800
acres - FOR BOARD ACTION ~ ~ . .
. .
6. Domestic Water Ite . ~ ~
7. Staff Co~o n t ~~~?~~~ ~~
8. ~rd Co~ents ~~~~~~~)
9./ Adjour~ent ~~~~-~--~ ~ ~ ~, ~
MINUTES
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24 ,1981
4:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Barton in the Depart-
ment of Water Conference Room.
The secretary called the roll as follows:
Present: Barton, Ratty, Kelmar, Oberholzer
Absent: Payne
The minutes from the meeting, of June 17, 1981, were approved
as presented.
The 1981-82 Domestic Water Enterprise Operating and Capital
Outlay Progam was presented to the board for approval and sub-
mission to the City Council. At this time Mr. Hawley recommended
that the Budget be carryed over until the next meeting, he stated
the budget was originally prepared on an anticipated fifteen per
cent growth in the Ashe Water System. He feels now that assump-
tion is rather high. Mr. Ratty made a motion to defer the budget
until the next meeting. The motion was passed.
An Agreement of Sale between the City and California Water Service
Company for acquistion by the City of the company's water distri-
bution facilities within the~ai'rhavenWater System was presented
to the board. At this time Mr. Hawley outlined the agreement and
stated that the acquistion price was $220,000.00. In regard to
the Agreement For Emergency Water SuppIy Mr. Kelmar questioned
the language on page 3 item 3,after discussion the sentence was
modified to include the word "jointly" and to read: The amount
of water delivered shall be jointly estimated if conditions do
not permit metered mea'surement. Mr. Oberholzer at this time
stated that he had discussed with Mr. Stetson in respect to add-
ing two (2)paragraphs on page six of the Agreement of Sale.
After discussion between board and staff Mr. Oberholzer made a
motion that the board approve the agreement subject to the amend-
ments which have been proposed and recommend to City Council that
they execute the agreement when both amendments are incorporated
into this agreement. The motion was passed.
Fairhaven~Wai~rSystem Ordinance Establishing and ~Adopting Rules
of Operation was presented to the board. After discussion Mr.
Kelmar made a motion to approve the Ordinance and recommend to
City Council for adoption. The motion was passed.
A Developer Agreement with Lunn Production Service Company to
provide water to twenty~nine (29) acres located at the southwest
corner of Burr and Gibson Streets from the Fairhaven Water System
was presented to the board. At this time Mr. Kelmar questioned
typographical error on page 2, item 2 which will be corrected.
After discussion Mr. Kelmar made a motion to approve agreement
and after the system is acquired recommend to City Council for
execution. The motion was passed.
A Developers Agreement with Tenneco Realty Development Corporation
to provide water to Parcel Map 5726 from the Fairhaven Water System
was presented to the board. The typographical error on page 2,
item 2 will be corrected. Mr. Ratty made a motion that the agree-
ment be approved and after the system is acquired it be recommended
to City Council for execution. The motion was passed.
~. Bogart at this time presented a letter dated June 23, 1981,
~,from George W Nickel of La Hacienda, Inc. regarding Palm Mutual
Water Company which was received just prior to this meeting. Mr.
Kelmar made a motion to receive the letter and place on file.
The motion was passed.
There being no further business to come before the board, Chair-
man Barton adjourned the meeting at 4:33 P.M.
James J. Barton, Chairm~n
City of Bakersfield Water Board
Linda Hostmyer, Secretary
City of Bakersfield Water Board
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
ITEMS FOR AGENDA
Agenda Section NEW BUSINESS
Requesting, Department PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Date for Water Board Action JULY 22, 1981
1. Description of Item: Authorization of emergency action on repairing
the pump bowls at Well No.'9, located on Quailwood Drive.
2. Comments: On July 14, Well No. 9 Stopped pumping due to failure of
the pump shaft and bowls. If another well were to go out of service
the system would not be capable of meeting peak summer demands. Cali-
fornia Water Service Company has estimated the .repair cost to be
$8,000.00 and recommends immediate action to 'get this well' back in
service. Staff concurrs with this recommendation and asks for authori-
zation for emergency action to waver bid proceedures. Funds are avait- '
able within the 1981-82 budget.
3. Suggested Action: Motion to approve and recommend to Council for adoption.
Attachments:
" Public liorks
NOTE:' ~tems for Water Board Agenda' are to be submitted prior to 10 a.m. Friday
for the Wednesday meeting of the following week.
i~.. ~.~'~ C~TY OF BAKERSFiEL'D
~ · ~ DOblESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE
ESTIMATEB REVENUES ANB EXPENSES BHBGET
~" FISCAL YEAR 1981-82
Est. Actual Proposed Projected
FY 1980-81 FY 1981-82 FY 1982-83
REVENUES:
Domestic Water Sales $1,337,600 $1,471,400 $1,618,500
Construction Water Sales 13,800 15,200 16,700
Interest Income 95,000 35,000 30,000
TOTAL REVENUES $1,446,400 $1,521,600 $1,665,200
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Field Expenses:
O & M Charges from Cai-Water $ 344,300 $ 413,200 $ 495,800
Power for Pumping 278,000 403,100 584,500
Other Maintenance 40,000 64,000 71,000
TOTAL FIELD EXPENSES $ 662,300 $ 880,300 $1,151,300
Administrative Expenses:
Salaries and Fringe Benefits $ 58,000 $ 62,200 $ 70,000
Charges from Other City Depts. 10,000 11,000 12,100
Management Fee from Cai-Water 30,400 33,400 36,800
Consultant Charges (Engineer,
Attorney, etc.) 33,900 37,300 41,000
Insurance Expenses 11,700 13,300 15,100
Property and Pumping Taxes 149,600 164,600 180,800
Misc. General Expenses 25,000 16,700 18,400
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES $ 318',600 $ 338,500 $ 374,200
NET OPERATING INCOME
Before Depreciation $ 465,500 $ 302,800 $ 139,700
Depreciation (125,000) (167,500) (200,700)
$ 340,500 $ 135,300 ($ 61,000)
NON-OPERATING EXPENSES:
Mainline Extension Refunds ($ 44,200) ($ 73,600) ($ 106,000)
Net Operating Income before
Capital Outlay Program $ 296,300 $ 61,700 ($ 167,000)
Transfer to Capital Improvement Budget $ 296,300 $ 61,700 ($ 167,000)
NET INCOME (LOSS) $ -0- $ -0-
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE
pRoPOSED CAPITAL OUTLAY PROGRAM
FISCAL YEARS 1981-82 and 1982-83
(w/o Rate Increase)
Proposed Projected
FY 1981-82 FY 1982-83
Source of Funds
Capital Improvement Reserves $167,500 $200,700
Net Operating Income 61,700 (167,000)
Loan Repayment from Fairhaven Div. -0- 40,000
$229,200 $ 73,700
Pyoposed Application of Funds Additional Water Mains
1. Kern River crossing at
Coffee Bridge Phase I $129,800 -0-
(Phase II Est. cost $70,000)
2. Mohawk St. from Carrier Canal
to Truxtun Ave. 1st payment $ 12,000 $ 12,000
($48,000 remaining)
3. White Ln. Stine Canal to
645 feet west of Grissom St. 8,000 -0-
Water Meters 45,000 '16,700'
Pumping Station Imprqvements
1. Building at Station 9 in
Quailwood Park $18,600 held
over in FY 1980-81 Capital
Budget. 29,400
(Est. cost $48,000i
2. Telemetering system at
Station 6 5,000 -0-
Additional Well and Pumping Plant
1. Station 12 on Higgin Oaks Dr. -0- $ 45,000
1st payment
($135,000 remaining)
$229,'200 $ 75,700
*Construction of this project will not commence until funds are assured for
the completion of Phase II.
*Projected water meters costs for FY 1982-83 is $33,300 in excess of
available funds ($50,000-16~700=$33,300).
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE
OPERATION SU~dARY
Estimated
12/22/76 Actual Actual Actual Actual Proposed Projected
6/30/77 FY 1977-78 FY 1978-79 FY 1979-80 FY 1980-81 FY 1981-82 FY 1982-83
Revenues $170,838 $676,548 $1,098,519 $1,293,114 $1,446,400. $1,521,600 $1,665,200
Operating and Non-Operating 303,355 663,346 692,321 858,910 1,150,100 1,459.,900 1,832,200
Expenses
Net Operating Income (129,772) 13,202 311,486 434,204 296,300 61,700 (167,0~0)
(Loss) Before Capital Outlay
Depreciation 38,763 81,776 94,712 110,855 125,000 167,500 200,700
Total Active Accounts in System 3,831 4,580 5,128 6,059 6,650 7,300 8,000
on June 30*
~' *City acquired system on December 22, 1976 with 3,368 total active accounts.
"**Without rate increase.
' COMPA[ilSON 0[: WATER RATES
BETWEEN
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY & CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD
California City off
treater Service Bakers£iel d
Metered Per Month Comp_~n~_~, __ (Ashe)
Service Charge
5/8 x 3/4 Inch $3.50 $3.89
$/4 Inch 4.40 4.28
1 Inch 6.00 5.84
1 1/:2 Inch 8.00 7.88
2 inch 11.00 10.50
3 Inch 20.00 18.95
4 Inch 27.00 25.78
6 Inch 45.00 42.83
8 Inch , 67.00 63.67 '
10 I¢ch' 83.00
Quality Rates
Per 100 Cu. Ft.
CWS 0-3O0,Cu. Ft. 0.229
300 Cu. Et. or more 0.296
Ashe ~
0-3000 Cu. Ft. 0.30
3000 Cu. Ft. or more 0.25
~average annual consumption per residential units is estimated to be 42,600
Qubic Feet (Cu. Ft.) based on the Ashe Water Rate Study date April 1978. This
%'ould make the average monthly consumption 35,500 Cu. Ft. therefore the average
bill would be:
~eter Size
Ashe Water 5/8" x 3/4" 3/4" 1"
Service Charge $3.89 $4.28 $5.84
Quantity Charge $0 30
a) 3000 Cu. Ft. x '
100 Cu. Ft. 9.00 9.00 9.00
b},(s5] oo-3o0o Cu. x
.0.2S
100 Cu. Ft. 1.38 1.38 1.38
TOTAl ...... $14.27 $14.66 $16.22
California Water Service Charge
Service Charge 3.50 4.40 6.00
Quantity Charge
a) 300 Cu. Ft. x $0.229
100 Cu. Ft.. 0.69 0.69 0.69
b) (3S,500-300) x 0.296
100 Cu. Ft. 7.84 7.84 7.84
TOTAL ..... $1.2.03 $12.93 $14.53
California Water (fiat)
For Single Family Residential Comparable Meter Sizes
6,000 Sq. Ft. or less $13.17 5/8" x 3/4"
6,001 to 10,000 Sq. Ft. 14.65 5/8" x 3/4"
10,001 to 16,000 Sq. Ft. 18.83 3/4"
16,001 to 25,000 Sq. Ft. 24.44 1"
CONPARISON OF WATER RATES
BETWEEN
CALIFORNIA WATER SE1WICE COMPANY & CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
California City of
Water Service Bakersfield
Metered Per Month Con?a,
Service Charge
5/8 x 3/4 Inch $3.50 $3 89
3/4 Inch 4.40 4 28
i Inch 6.00 S 84
1 1/2 Inch 8.00. 7 88
2 Inch 11.00 10 50
3 Inch 20.00 18.95
4 Inch 27.00 25 78
6 Inch 45.00 42.83
8 Inch 67.00 65.67
10 Inch 83.00
Quality Rates
Per 100 Cu. Ft,
CWS 0-300 Cu. Ft. 0.229
300 Cu. Ft. or more 0.296
Ashe
O-SO00 Cu. Ft. 0.30
3000 Cu. Ft. or more 0.25 ,,
l'~Save'rago annual consumption per residential units is estimated to be 42,600
..Cub~.c Feet (Cu. Ft.) based on the Ashe Water Rate Study date April. 1978. This
~would make the average monthly consumption 35,500 Cu. Ft. therefore the average
bill would be:
Meter Size
Ashe Water 5/8" x 3/4" 3/4" 1"
Service Charge , $3.89 $4.28 $5,84
Quantity Charge $0.30
a) 3000 Cu. Ft. x
100 Cu. Ft. 9.00 9.00 9.00
b) (35,500-3000 Cu. Ft.) x 0.25
100 Cu. Ft. 1.38 1.38 1.38
TOTAL ..... $14.27 $14.66 $i6.22
California Water Service Charge
Service Charge 3.50 4.40 6.00
Quantity Charge
a) 300 Cu. Ft. x $0.229
100 Cu. Ft. 0.69 0.69 0.69
b) (3S,500-300) x _0.296
100 Cu. Ft. 7.84 7.84 7.84
TOTAL ..... $12.03 $12.93 $14.53
California Water (flat)
For Single Family Residential Comparable Meter Sizes
6,000 Sq. Ft. or less $13.17 5/8" x 3/4"
6,001 to 10,000 Sq. Ft. 14.65 5/8" x 3/4"
10,001 to 16,000 Sq. Ft. 18.83 3/4"
16,001 to 25,000 Sq. Ft. 24.44 1"
ROSEDALE RIO BRAVO
WATER STORAGE DISTRICT
2623 "F" St., Suite L P.O. Box 867 · Bakersfield, California 93302 · 325-4797
JUL 1981
-~i'Y O~ 8~KI~RSFIELL.
oEPARTNtENT OF WAT~,'-
City of Bakersfield Water Board
4101 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Gentlemen:
Re: Proposed Master Spreading Agreement
Thank you for the recent draft of the proposed Master Spreading Agreement
for the City and other 'entities. We are presently reviewing this document
along with copies of correspondence between the City and those who have
contracted with the City in' regard to the operation of the City's spreading
works. We are hopeful that a master agreement which will provide a satisfactory
use of the groundwater basin by all overlying entities can be developed. We
believe you share a like desire.
Upon review of the aQreements, there are still several Questions which are
raised, and we are at this time formalizinQ those Questions and will present
them to vou in the verv near future.-
In the past, vou indicated your willingness to set up a meeting(s) so that
this matter can be fully explored by all interested parties. We are hopeful
you will proceed to do so. We will look.forward to hearin§ from you on the same.
Very truly yours,
ROSEDALE-RIO BRAVO WATER STORAGE DISTRICT
Manager
cc/Each Di rector W. Palmer
D, Hardan
7-1-81
cc: Water Board (Full)
S. Hatch
T. Stetson
'~ ~ MEMORANDUM
-TO: City Water Board Ref. File: #1200-B
City Water Department Staff
FROM: George W. Nickel, Jr.
DATE: July 13, 1981
SUBJECT: FOLLOW UP TO MEETING WITH CURLY BARTON AND GENE
BOGART ON JULY llth
At my invitation Curly Barton met with me and Tom Clark of
my organization on the morning of July llth. In order to
have City Water Department Staff input at the meeting,
Curly also had Gene Bogart participate in the meeting. Gene's
superior John Chafin was on vacation and not available.
I had also attempted to include Tom Payne and Don Ratty in
this get together; however, both of them were out of town
on other matters. In any event~ I believe that we had a good
meeting and exchange of ideas. At Curly's request, I am
writing this memorandum to keep all of you up to date on our
discussion and on the attached information that I passed out
to Curly and Gene at the July llth meeting.
As the appointed representative of the Olcese Water District
and as a long time member of the Kern County Water Community,
it is my sincere desire to work with all of you on a constructive
program that will bring in supplemental water to benefit the
City of Bakersfield and all of Kern County. In addition, I
look forward to suggesting and working with programs on
conjunctive water use and exchanges that are in the best
interest of the Kern County Economy. I do hope that you will
find my ideas to be constructive and workable. As a point
of beginning, I will first refer to the information passed out
to Curl.y and Gene.
1. You will find attached my memorandum of July 10tM to
Curly entitled Proposed Agency Program on the City's 2800
acre Spreading Area. I believe that my most important suggestion
for the City Water Board is to deal directly with the Kern
County Water Agency on bringing supplemental California Aqueduct
water into the City's spreading area. I believe that this will
be a far more workable program than dealing separately with the
Agency's Member Units. I feel that if you put the responsibility
on the Agency, the Agency will come up with a program that will
work for its Member Units and not involve the City on how to
reach that agreement. On the matter of supplemental California
Aqueduct water, I can accurately report that Ron Robie and his
staff at the Department of Water Resources have no intention of
dealing with any entity in Kern County other than the Agency.
The other point of importance that I make in the
memorandum to Curly, is that to deal with the Agency, I feel
Page 2. '
~a~ .the City will want to work with an extraction charge
~rather~.than a spreading charge. I believe that your staff
and your consulting engineer Tom Stetson recognize the
~mportance of this contention.
2. You will also find attached a draft of what I have
entitled Water Spreading and Recovery Agreement. You will
note that this incorporates much of the language in your draft
of a Master Spreading Agreement that has been sent out to a
number of wat'er districts for comment; however, there are some
very basic differences that I will note below.
(a) As noted in my memorandum to Curly, I suggest
that this agreement should only be between the City and the
Agency rather than with a number of separate districts that
must necessarily deal through the Agency. I feel that it will
be simpler and more workable in every way for the City to
have to deal only with the Agency.
(b) I have set forth an extraction charge rather
than a spreading charge. This i's necessary in order to make
the program work for the Agency's Member Units such as Wheeler
Ridge, Berrenda Mesa, Belridge, Lost Hills and Semitropic.
(c) I have suggested that the City and its prior
Contractors should always have a prior position on both water
spreading and extraction from the City's spreading area.
(d) I have suggested that all further physical
improvements in the City's spreading area should be taken on
by the Ag'ency. I do not anticipate that it will be difficult
to get a commitment from the Agency o.n this point. It will
certainly be in the best interest of the City and its prior
Contractors to do so.
Regarding my suggestions, I am sure that Curly will
be reporting directly to you; however,. I can state that Curly
thought that there would be merit in my encouraging the Agency
· to directly make this type o~ proposal to the City Water Board.
To begin with, Curly further suggested that this should be handled
somewhat informally so that there can be a further exchange of
ideas before a form of agreement is actually pFesented at either
the Agency or the City Water'Board.
3. You will find attached a copy of my letter of July 7th.
to Ron Robie, Director of the Department of Water Resources.
As reported in my memorandum to Curly, I felt that I had a very
satisfactory meeting on July 7th with Ron Robie and five (5) key
members of his staff. To really make a conjunctive use water
program in the City's spreading area, it does seem indicated that
a physical means of getting the water out of the spreading area
in a water short year is extremely important. As long as the
State is willing to accept into the Aqueduct for distribution
Page 3. ·
~e~ ~ter from the City's spreading area, we have a conduit
that will really work for getting water to such Agency Member
Units as Wheeler Ridge, Belridge, Berrenda Mesa, tost Hills
and Semitropic. Quite frankly, Ron Robie would prefer to have
the State handle the surplus California Aqueduct water program
and to use it as part of the State Water Project yield which
would mean that water conserved in the underground for later
use would benefit all State Project Contractors rather than
just Kern County. I assured Ron Robie this would be totally
unacceptable to Kern County. When I left the meeting with Ron
Robie, I was satisfied that he would agree that the Kern
County Water Agency's regulation of surplus water Aqueduct
water by underground recharge and later recovery should be
for the benefit of only Kern County. I know that the present
Agency Board of Directors feel very strongly on this point
and will take a very positive position on it with the State.
! do hope that I will have the opportunity to meet informally
with City Water Board members and City Water Department Staff
further on this overall subjecty I understand that there will
not be a City Water Board meeting on July 15th, but that one
will be likely scheduled on July 22nd. Prior to that time,
I welcome the opportunity to meet with any or all of you. As
I told Curly, my primary objective is to assist the City Water
Board and its prior Contractors in having a fully workable and
economic program in the City's spreading area on conservation
and recovery of water for the City of Bakersfield. As long as
we have satisfactory assurance that'the City and its prior
Contractors have a priority position on the spreading and
recovery of water, it will be important to work with the water
community generally for enchancement of water supplies and
the economic regulation of them. I look for'ward to hearing
from any of you who would like to discuss this overall subject
and the implementation of it.
GWN: rjp
c- Curley Barton Tom Payne
Richard Oberholzer
Phil Kelmar
Tom Stetson
John Chafin
Gene Bogart
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curly Barton Ref. File
FROM: George W. Nickel, Jr.
DATE: July 10, 1981
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AGENCY PROGRAM ON THE CITY'S 2800 ACRE
SPREADING AREA
Reference is made to the Master Spreading Agreement which was
distributed at the Water Board meeting on June 24th. At your
June 24th meeting the Water Board approved sending this
Draft of Water Mas~er Spreading Agreement to a number of
entities that have indicated interest in a spreading and
recovery program in or adjacent to the City spreading area..
I had an opportunity to look at this draft of agreement shortly
before the meeting on June 24th. Consequently, I ~,noted.
'my concern to the Water Board t~at there was nothing in the
draft of agreement that would permit entities spreading water
in the City's 2800 acres to extract water by wells in the 2800
acres. I noted that the agreement really only seemed ,to have-
potential value for enti'ties immediately adjacent to the City ,
spreading area. The possible benefitting entities would
appear to be the James Pioneer Improvement District of
North Kern which covers land largely owned by Tenneco and the
West ~Kern County Water District and possibly the Rosedale
District. I noted that the entity that could do the mo. st for
bringing surplus Aqueduct water into the City spreading area
was the Agency, which is the only entity in Kern County that
has license to deal with the State of California on Aqueduct
water. I went on to note that there are a number of ~Agency
Member Units that would like to work through the Agency for''
a conjunctive use program which would necessarily inclu,de
the right of water extraction from the City's spreading,area.
After bringing these things to the attention of the Water
Board, your staff and your consultants, Tom Stetson spoke
forth and stated that he anticipated that the Agency and
other entities would want the right of extraction from the
City spreading area. However, language was inadvertently
or otherwise left out of the agreement. Tom Stetson went~
on to say that he would recommend that any entity interested
in setting up for water extraction should so indicate
the Water Board. It seemed agreed that this type of
extraction program would be given consideration by the Water
Board.
Since the June 24th Water Board meeting, I have had the
opportunity to discuss this subject further with Tom Stetson,
John Chafin and Gene Bogart. There does definitely, seem
~o be agreement amono them that water extraction should be
~ihc~l~ded in the Water Spreading Agreement. I have followed
u'p thi~'contact with several meetings with Agency staff and
~d3rectors. I think that I have come up with a program that
should be of mutual interest to both the City and the Agency.
Moreover, it is a program that should find endorsement from
the City's prior Contractors, namely Olcese and Buena Vista.
Attached you will find a copy of my draft of a Water Spreading
and Recovery Agreement between the City and the Agency. In
this Agreement, you will note that the priority position on
both spreading and extraction of water is preserved for the
City and its prior Contractors. YOU will also note that the
Agency will act for and on behalf of its Member Units. This
means that the City will only have to deal with the Agency
and not with the Member Units of the Agency. The ~Agency will
have the responsibility of coming up with an overall program
and the City will be able to stay out of the politics of how th|s
may be achieved.
One of the most important points that I have tried to make
to the Agency has to do with th~ physical facilities that
will be necessary in the City spreading area. I feel that
the City and Olcese already have facilities that have done a
good job at spreading a large 'amount of water. It is my
contention that if the Agency is to come in on behalf of itself
and its Member Units that all additional spreading facilities
costs should be passed on to the Agency. After talking to
a number of the Agency Member Units, I have satisfied myself
that it will not be difficult to put this point over. I
will also want to again stress that it is my concept that
the City and its prior Contractors will at all times have a
priority on spreading capacity and recovery facilities.
The recovery of water fromilthe City spreading area is a matter
that I have given much thought to. This has resulted in my
meeting with the Director of the Department of Water Resources
of the State, Ron Robie on July 7th. You will find attached
a copy of my July 7 letter to Ron Robie. You will note that
I have asked for the Agency to have the right to convey water
into the California Aqueduct from wel~ls in~ the City spreading
area. The California Aqueduct can then be a conveyance
facility to reach the lands of the Agency's Member Units that
can be served off of the California Aqueudct. I can report to
you that I had a very sa~8~t~Y.meeting with Ron Robie and
5 key members of his staff. ! look forward to further discussion
with you on this subject at our meeting on July llth.
George W. N{ kel, Jr..
~0~ Lake .Mrna Rood
_ ~o ?.:.::'Annex"
Ron Robie, Director
Department of Water Resources
State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, California
0ear Rom:
I very much appreciate your setting aside a few minutes to
meet with-me this afternoon. As you know, I have been very
active in the Ker~ C~'~nty Water ~cmmun[ty. ~ th~nk the
record will show that I have maze positive co~t.ib,e'ti~ns !~
~,,= p~St. [ wOu~ t~<e tO worK With yOU and the State of
California in making some positive contributions in the
future for the mutual benefit of the State and Kern County.
At present, ! am wOrkimg closely with the City of Bakersfield
on the development of its 2800 acre spreading area along the
Kern River on con;unctive, water use programs. As a point of
beginning, we have a program for spreading high flow Kern
River Water Rights for recovery on a regulated basis. In
doing so, an'evaluation has been made by the engineering
firm of Ricks, Taylor 5 Meyers on the potential spreading
capacity of the City's 2800 acre spreading area. This
evaluation indicates t~at under properly controlled conditions
in excess of 400,000 acre feet can be spread in a given yea/
for subsequent recover'! by wells to be installed in the
area. This is substantially more spreading capacity than
what is required to regulate our high flow Kern River water
rights; consequently, it has become apparent that there is a
good opportunity to also spread surplus California Aqueduct
water when it is available. Such spreading can be 'accomplished
by both direct spreading off the Cross Valley Canal and by
some'exchanges of Kern River water for,California Aqueduct
water. I look forward to giving you a little more detail on
how these programs can be physically accomplished.
When we encounter a d~y year like 1977, there is presently
great urgency to ~ave a supplemental supply of water to
augment the limited f~ow available in the California Aqueduct.
Even if the Peripheral Canal is constructed, it appears that
there will be years w~en supplemental water will be required
to meet the contracted amounts of water that the Kern County
Water Agency purchases from the State for its Member Units.
7-13-81 "
cc:w/attach.
S. Hatch, T. Stetson, G. Bogart, F.. Core
..Now;:ma~in9 the assumption that there is a well .organized
s~readin, g~program on the City's 2800 acres, we will have a
s~ppl'y~o~.water to draw on in a year of iow yield on the
C~ornia A~educt. The next question is how do we get
portiogs of that water supply to Member Unit Districts of
the Kern County Water Agency lying along the California
Aqueduct such as the Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage
District, the Be-lridge Water Storage District, the Berrenda
Mesa Water District, the Lost Hills Water District and the
Semitropic Water District. I have given this ~ubject
substantial thought and have concluded that a delivery of
good quality well water into the California Aqueduct out of
the Buena Vista Aquatic Park will be a practical physical
solution. It is'this particular program that I look for-
ward to discussing with you this afternoon. It is proposed
that the well water be pumped from wells in the City's
spreading area. Such wells will discharge into what we
refer ~o as the River Canal which is a concrete lined canal
with a.capaclty of some 700 cfs that discharges into the
Buena Vista Aquatic Park. Wi~h very little work, water can
be passed from the Buena Vis~'a Aquatic Perk into the
.C ....... [~ receive& in[o [he
California Aqueduct', it will merely be a bookkeeping pro-
Cedure'for getting a like amount of water from the California
Aqueduct delivered to Member Units of the Kern County
Water Agency ~hat I made reference to earlier. I think
we have a physical solution here that works to the'mutual
advantage of the State and the Kern County Water Agency
on behalf of its Member Units. Through your cooperation
in 1977, there actually was some well water pumped into
the California Aqueduct from wells in t½e Wheeler Ridge-
Maricopa Water Storage District for water credit and
delivery; however, it was a very limited program as com-
pared to the one that I ~have described above.
Incidentally, another benefit from the program that I have
described will be found at the Buena Vista Aquatic Park'.
It will assure a supply and good circulation of water
through the Buena Vista Aquatic Park even in a dry year
like 1~77. As I am sure you know, the Buena Vista Aquatic
Park is the most popular publlc recreation facility along
the California Aqueduct in the ~an Joaquin Valley.
A positive reaction from you to the program that I have
outlined, and will discuss further with you, will be of'
great benefit to the Kern County Water Community. As noted,
I am working closely with, the City of'Bakersfield to
maximize use'of its 2800 acre spreading area. I am
also working directly with the Kern County Water Agency
and a number of its Member Units. i would 1. ike to carry
the word back to all concerned that the State will look
favorably upon the program that I have suggested. It is
clear to me that this program will make much bert.er use
o'f surplus California Aqueduct water when it is available
in a year like 19Sl.
Sincerely, . ~
,~z . . .,"// ~ /~ ~
7 , - ~-~/ t ~;'~ '~--'
//'-' ~ '.'~. ~ 1' ~ ~~'
George ~. Nickel, Jr. -
~N: rjp
.~,_DRAFT OF CONTRACT BEtWEEN,CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (City) and
~'~KERN COUNTY WATER AGEUCY (Agency) entited:
x. WATER SPREADING AND RECOVERY AGREEMENT
WHEREAS:
A. The City owns approximately 2800 acres of land
overlying the Kern County Groundwater Basin, hereinafter
referred to as "City Spreading Area", which lands are set
forth on a map entitled Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein;
B. City has entered into Agreement No. 77-07 W.B.
dated November 9, 1977, which Agreement has been amended as'
set forth' in Agreement No. 78-12 W.B. dated June 27, 1978
and Agreement no. 81-76: dated ~priI I~, !981. AIl of the
above said Agreements are jointly referred to herein as the
"Basic Spreading Agreements";
C. From time to time City has spreading capacity
excess to its own needs on City Spreading Area, and excess
to requirements of its prior Contractors under the Basic
Spreading Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Excess
Spreading Capacity".
O. Agency is the Contractor with the state of California
for itself and all Districts in Kern County for California
.Aqueduct water. On behalf of itself and the Oistricts that
it contracts for, Agency wishes to increase and maximize the
use of California Aqueduct water for the benefit of the Ker'n
County Water Community.
E. To better accomplish its purposes, Agency wishes'
to contract with City for the use of surplus capacity in
City's spreading area for the spreading and subsequent
recovery of water for beneficial use.
F. Subject to the City and its prior Contractors
having at all times the first priority on use of spreading
capacity, and water recovery facilities, City is willing to
permit Agency on behalf of itself and its contracting ~Olstricts'
to use excess spreading capacity and to subsequently recover
wa.tar for beneficial use subject to appropriate financial
c~n~itions and arrangements.
~ NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AMONG THE PARTIES
as follows:
1. FACILITY CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND FINANCING.
(a) City and 'its prior Contractors already have a
spreading program and facilities to handle the spreading of
large quantities of water. Agency agrees at its cost to
improve and increase the spreading capacity in City's spreading
area in order to a~commodate not only the water of City and
its prior Contractors, but also water that Agency wishes to
spread in the area on behalf of itself and the Districts re-
presented by Agency. Agency agrees to follow the plans that
have been developed for City by?Ricks, Taylor & Associates
in increasing the spreading capacity in City's spreading
area. Agency shall reimburse City for any payments City has
made to Ricks, Taylor & Associates for the engineering
studies and for the related aerial survey. Agency will not
be required to reimburse City or its prime Contractors for
spreading work and facilities constructed prior to date of
this Agreement. In order to implement this program as
rapidly as possible, Agency will not be required initially
to install ail of the controls and facilities set forth in
the Ricks, Taylor & Associates plans. By written agreement
with City, Agency can work toward a scheduled program. If
there should be such a program, it will be attached to this
Agreement and made a part hereof.
(b) When Agency spreads water in the future,
Agency shall pay its proportionate share of the annual cost
to spread water as the amount of such waters spread shall
bear t° the total water spread 'in any given calendar year.
Agency shall work directly with City on the annual operation
and maintenance program. City shall have the control of
decisions on maintenance work to be carried out and City
shall be reimbursed for administrative expense.
(c) Because the City and its prior contractors
~'oare to a substantlal extent relyin~ upbn high flow Kern
River entitlement for spreading water, it is difficult to
p~e~.ic'~ the years and times that such water will be available
.~for spreading; however, Agency acknowledges and agrees that
these and any other waters of City and its prior Contractors
will at ali times have a priority for spreading such water
over and above that of Agency and the Districts contracting
with Agency. Aside from this stipulation, Agency will have
the right to use excess spreading capacity in City's spreading
area. Agency agrees to notify City when Agency has water
for spreading. Agency agrees to establish measuring devices
satisfactory to City for the measurement of Agency water
flowing into City'~ spreading area. Agency. agrees to.terminate
spreading to the extent that City or its prime Contractors
have a need for the available spreading capacity or a portion
thereof at any particular time.
2. OPERATION AND USE OF LAND AND FACILITIES.
(al Agency may spread water obtained from the
California Aqueduct or Kern River water obtained by exchange
for California Aqueduct water.
(b) Recovery of water bY Agency will be limited
to :he net amount of water placed in underlying storage. In
any given calendar year, Agency will be restricted to recovery
of no more than 50~ of the'Agency w~ter in underground
storage at the beginning of that particular calendar year.
(c) At locations having the-prior approval of
City, Agency may install wells and pumps in City's spreading
area. Without prior written approval of City, water recovered
by Agency may be used for agricultural purposes only.
Agency may use for conveyance purposes either the Cross
Valley Canal and/or the River Canal· To the' extent that
Agency wishes to use the River ~anal, prior notice shall be
given to City. City at ali times will maintain priority of
use of the River Canal for the City and those entities
having a present right of use. Subject to those restrictions,
City will permit Agency to use the River Canal subject to
paying a use charge for the Canal similar to what City' will
c~arge to its prior Contractors when they make use of the
~a'pal.
(d) City will own wells and pumps in City's
~preading area installed by City's prior Contractors.
Agency will own wells .and pumps at locations authorized by
City. To maximize efficiency of well use and control of
underground water levels, City will retain control of the
wells to be utilized during times when full well production
is not required to meet the needs of City, its prior Contractors
and Agency. Cost of well operation will.be calculated OM&R
on each installed well and pump. City will be responsible
for determination of 0M&R costs and they will be assessed to
the authorized users under the terms of this Agreement.
eXTRACT!n,, FEc
In addition to other '~ayments required under this
Agreement, Agency shall pay to the City the following noted
extraction fees:-
(al For water extracted from City's spreading
area the same extraction charge to be assessed to Agency's
prior Contractors, which at the present time is
per acre foot.
(b) The above noted extraction charge is subject
to escalation on the basis of the July 1, 1981 Price Index
"All Commodities" classifications for the Wholesale Price
Indicies for Major-Commodity'Group published by. the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Adjustments will be made in
January of'each year.
(c) It is recognized that some of the Districts
that the Agency will be contracting for will have the Agency '
spread Water in the City's spreading area, but.will recover
such water from wells in their adjacent or nearby District '.
areas. Agency agrees to notify City when this will be
scheduled to occur. Extraction charges will then be made at
the same rate noted above to the Agency ~hen the contracting
Districts pump their wells for water recovery. Such Districts
are to furnish the Agency and~ the City with an annual report.
of pumping from all wells o~vned or cor~trolled by such Districts
and all w'~ells owned by lando~.~ners within such districts~
~p~ec. ifxying therein the amount of water stored pursuant to
~his Agreement which has been extracted in the preceeding
~alendar year. Agency shall furnish proof satisfactory to
City that such Districts are balancing their underground
water take by imported water acquired through Agency and/or
by water acquired from other sources.
62(lX~.4~:o Ming Road .
s -'houte 4, Box sss JUN 2 4 1981
~io Brcrv'o Annex
B~.~ersfielcL CA 93306 .([¥ Ot- t~E.~SFIEt, D
Telephone 805/366-5581 uEPARTMENT OF WA~
June 23, 1981
City of Bakersfield ~
Water Board
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Gentlemen:
At your~ June 17, 198! Water Board meeting, the immediate need
for water of the Palm Mutual Water Company and its request
for service from the Olcese Water District was discussed.
Letters from Palm Mutual Water Company and Olcese Water
Di~strict to the Water Board are attached for your reference.
Palm Mutual has requested both temporary service and annexation
to Olcese Water District. It is our feeling that annexation
of Palm Mutual to Olcese is premature and should not be considered
until such-time that the District's program at ~the 2800 acres
is complete and operational and the current annexation of City
lands before LAFCO has taken p.lace.
However, in recongition of the immediate water shortage in the
area, we strongly support that temporary service be made avail-
able to Palm Mutual at the earliest possible date. Owen F.
Goodman, Attorney for Olcese Water District, has rendered a
legal opinion that temporary service by Olcese to Palm Mutual
may result in a permanent obligation by Olcese to serve the
area. As we understand it, Mr. Goodman's opinion is based both
on the facts of law and in recognition thatPalm Mutual's water
shortage is permanent in nature rather than temporary..
Based on the above, there appears to be a dilemma as to how to
provide temporary service to Palm Mutual without creating a
permanent obligation.
In order to get the issue off dead center and temporary service
to the existing homeowners in Palm Mutual at the earliest possible
date, we are Suggesting that the fo)lowing program be instituted:
t. La ~acienda, Inc., is willing to enter into a water
supply agreement with Palm Mutual to provide temporary service
for a period of one year. Service shall be specifically limited
to one year in order to provide Palm ~utual sufficient time to
secure a permanent supply.
City of Bakersfield - Water Board · ~
Page.:2. ~
~ 2. The source of supply will be La Hacienda's deep well
located.adjacent to the' Kern River in the southeast quarter of
Section 1, Township 29 South, Range 29 East. The well has a
rated capacity in excess of 3,500 gpm.
3. Wate~r will be delivered via the Kern River to Olcese
Water District'S pump station and treatment plant located in
the southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 29 South, Range 29
East.
4. La Hacienda will enter into a wheeling agreement with
Olcese to treat and transport water to the terminus of the
District's Comanche Pipeline.
5. Palm Mutual will take delivery of La Hacienda water at
the terminus of the Comanche Pipeline. Palm Mutual will meter and
transport water through temporary facilities to its existing system.
6. It will be explicitly stated in the agreement with
Palm Mutual that:
a) The water supply is non-firm and is available
for one year only.
b) Temporary water shall be limited in quantity
to the requirements of existing structures
within Palm Mutual.
c) The one year water supply is separate and apart
and in no way connected with water supplies of
the City. of Bakersfield or Olcese Water District.
7. Recognizing that our deep well pumps at a rate in
excess of 3,500 gpm and that the diversion on behalf of Palm
Mutual will be less than 150 gpm, the cooperation of the
Kern River Interests and/or Improvement District No. 4 of the
Kern County Water Agency will be required to utilize water
pumped in excess of the requirements of Palm Mutual.
We believe that institution of the program set forth above will
meet the immediate needs of the residents of Palm Mutual while
at the same time providing full protection to Olcese Water District
and residents of the City of Bakersfield. The one year period
of temporary service from La Hacienda should provide Palm
Mutual sufficient time to fully evaluate and explore alternative
methods of securing a firm water supply.
Your Board, the Olcese Water District, and Palm Mutual Water
Company have gone on record as supporting that no further
building permits be issued within the boundaries of Palm Mutual
until such time that a firm water supply is secured for the ~
area. We are therefore sending a copy of this letter to the
Board of Supervisors for their consideration.
As a matter of protocol, we do not believe that it is necessary
City of Bakersfield - W~te'r Board
~ ~Page 3. ·
,;
that the City Water Board take formal action on the program
set forth above; however, we would like to discuss your reaction
to the program as a non-agenda item at your Water Board meeting
on June 24, 1981.
S?~'n~'~e r e 1 y, ~-
· ?
.... ~eorge W. Nickel, Jr.
GWN: rjp
c- John Chafin
Lou Deris, President Palm Mutual Water Company
Owen F. Goodman, Esq.
County of Kern Board of Supervisors
Olcese Water District Board of Directors
Ref. File: ~1275-E-m
" '~ ''~ '. KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY
~ .. Bakersfield. CaJifomia 93302
Tele~,c.,-.e: 303-6200
JackJ' ElliottG ThomsonF°x Dtvisioa~ 32
Floyd S. Cooley Division 4 '
Robert E. McCarthy Divi~on 5
Gene A. Lundquist Division 7 .! Secretary
' 1981 JUL ! ? 1981
' July 15.
Mr. James Barton. Chairman
City Water Board
City of Bakersfield
4101Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Barton:
We have received and reviewed a copy of the Master Spreading
Agreement proposed by the City of Bakersfield to provide for various entities
to spread water for groundwater recharge in the City's spreading area. The
Kern County Water Agency has carried out recharge programs in the past that
· spread water in the City's spreading area, as well as the Kern River Channel
and other available sites. It is proposed that such programs be undertaken
in the latter months of 1981 and in the months and years ahead. Therefore,
we agree with the need for a long-range agreement to be executed between the
City and the Agency for groundwater spreading programs.'
At present, there is interest by many water districts, water users
and landowners in groundwater management programs that would (al maximize the
amount of water.imported from both State and Federal Projects, (b) improve
groundwater supplies by recharge, (c) provide by means of groundwater storage
or banking more' dependable water supplies by increased pumping, and (d)
exchanges of water available from surface and groundwater sources to improve
efficiency and reduce irrigation costs.
To facilitate.such objectives the Agency in addition to groundwater
recharge, is participating in the Optimization Study and discussions with a
number of districts to develop programs for improved groundwater management.
It is expected that these efforts will result in joint programs whereby the
Agency would obtain surplus State Project waters for recharge, place such
water into groundwater storage, reallocate such stored and surface waters
during years of restricted water supplies and participate in the financial
aspects of the programs. I
The spreading arrangements offered by the City would be advant-
ageous to such programs. Some comments and suggestions are offered on
Mr. ~J~mes B"arton
P~'g~,~ Two
July 15, 1981
the proposed Master Spreading Agreement and on several aspects of groundwater
storage. Hopefully, these comments will lead to fruitful discussions on
joint projects to extend the use and value of the City's spreading area to
many water districts and water users.
Robert E. McCarthy, Presid)b~ft
Board of Directors
Enclosure
KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY COMMENTS
: r'.: ~' ON
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER SPREADING AGREEMENT
1. The first article deals with construction and maintenance of improved
facilities in the 2800 acre spreading area. It is recognized that the
'- . City has substantial investment in the land encompassed by the spreading
area and that costs will be incurred as the area is improved and managed.
The proposal is for an annual fee to be paid by spreaders. It is
suggested there by an option for a spreader to participate in joint
.. financing of improvements. This may be less costly to the spreader over
a period of years than amortizing and paying interest on initial improve-
ment costs. Some entities'may be able to furnish "in-kind" equipment,
labor and supplies toward improvements as an option to up-front financing
or long-range amortization.
2. Operation and use may have to recognize the programs, legal authorities
. ..:.. and objectives of various spreaders. For instance, the Agency will
probably continue to carry out overdraft correction programs. In these
programs, all participants agr.ee not to recapture the water placed in
· .. storage and it remains in groundwater storage in perpetuity under the
jurisdiction of the Agency. The Agency could not relinquish such rights
to the City under the proposed agreement.
3. The agreement should set up a system of records and accounts and establish
;' the rights of each spreader to its share of jointly pooled water and any
...,., water under special reservations.
4. Spreading Fees - Ir'is recognized that the operation of the City's spread-
ing area should be self-supporting. It may be possible to develop a
· charge for spreading based on defraying operating costs rather than basing
, ~', .' the fees on the concept of subsequent irrigation use. Theh an extraction
fee may be in order at the time water would be withdrawn. This would
".'-'~'~TI''? eliminate the need to escalate a spreading fee fixed at the present
. - 5. Most of the general conditions presented are 'reasonable, however, a few
' · should be discussed and revised to recognized Agency and joint project
"~. needs. For instance, as in V(c), extraction of Agency water for use
" ... thereof would also have to be subject to the consent of the Agency.
~,~ ; HATCH ,~r~ PARENT
STAN~LEY C. ~ATCH A PROFeSSIOnAL CO~O~ATION AREA CODE 805
GERA~ B. PARENT ~1 EAST CARRILLO STREET TELEPHONE 963- 1971
=.TIMOTHY BUYNAK~JR. SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA ~3102 POST OFFICE DRAWER 720
Mr. John Chafin
Water Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue ,
Bakersfield, California
Dear John:
Enclosed find a proposed modification of agreement
dealing with the hourly billing rate applicable to govern-
mental agencies represented by our firm. Effective July 1,
1981, senior attorneys will be billed at the rate of $105.00
per hour, member attorneys will be billed at the rate of
$95.00 per hour, and associate attorneys will be billed at
the rate of $90.00 Der hour.
The purpose of this change is to attempt to keep all
our governmental billings at approximately the same rate,
which we established in 1965 for governmental agencies,
corrected only for the effects of inflation.
We would appreciate your having the Water Board
consider and execute this modification by July 1, 1981.
STANLEY C. HATCH
For HATCH AND PARENT
SCH:ah
Enclosure
W.B.
MODIFICATION OF .AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 1981,
by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a political subdivision
of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "Bakersfield",
and HATCH AND PARENT, a professional corporation of the State of
California, whose professional employees are duly qualified and
licensed to practice law in the State of California, hereinafter
referred to as "Attorney."
On October 5, 1978, Bakersfield and Attorney entered
into an Agreement, 78-14 W.B., for Attorney's services which
was amended by Agreement 80-02 W.B. June 25, 1980. The parties now
wish to amend that Agreement to read:
1. The Fourth Paragraph on the first page of Agreement
78-14 W.B. is amended to read:
"Attorney time shall be billed by Attorney and
paid by Bakersfield at the rate of ONE HUNDRED FIVE
DOLLARS C$105.00) per hour for senior attorneys,
NINETY FIVE DOLLARS' ($95.00) per hour for member
attorneys and NINETY DOLLARS ($90.00) per hour for
associate attorneys of the firm."
All other terms, conditions and provisions of 78-14 W.B.
is amended by 80-02 W.B. and shall remain unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Modification of Agreement on the date and year first above
written.
I-I~TCH AND PARENT
A Pro~~ ~Cor~ratlon
By ~ ~
STAN~LE~ C. HATCH} PreSident
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (WATER BOARD)
By
JA_~ES J. BARTON, Chairman,
City of Bakersfield Water Board
-2-
4:)Icese Water District
~ersheid. Cahforn~a 9~01
_ ~I~ ~ ~E~IE~
22, ~gBZ
James J. Barton
Chairman of the City Water Board
1S01 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Barton:
I have received the Agenda for the City Water Board meeting to
be held later today. With the Agenda I also received a copy of
your letter of July 14th addressed to me as President of Olcese
Water District. I understand that this letter does not become
official until approved by the City Water Board; consequently,
I make the assumption that you would like the City Water Board
to have my comments on your proposed July 14th letter before
it is approved. My comments are the following:
1. On behalf of the Olcese Water.District, I want to
make it abundantly clear that Olcese has every intention of
living up to all requirements under Agreement #77-07 W.B.
.2. When Agreement #77-07 W.B. was entered into, the
City did not have a program for including other districts and
entities in water spreading programs in the City's 2800 acres.
As set forth in my letter to you of June 1Sth, Olcese does not
object to increased spreading activities, but instead endorsed
them subject only to the City and its prior Contractors retaining
.a priority position on water spreading and recovery.
3. In my letter to you of June 1Sth, I suggested that
other districts and entities that are extended the right to
use the City's spreading area should pay the additional cost in
the spreading area made necessary to accommodate the additional
spreading water. This understanding will reduce or eliminate
that type of expense being pa.ssed on to the City or Olcese.
Having had direct contact with a number of Member Units of the
Kern County Water Agency that would like to use the City's
spreading area, I can give you absolute assurance that through
the Agency these districts will agree to pay the cost of increasing
the capacity of the spreading area. This certainly is in the best
interest of the City and Olcese which is, of course, very much a
part of the City.
.~.~-'-James~J. Barton
.' Page 2.
4. To clear up an apparent misunderstanding in your
proposed letter of July 14th, Oicese is.not just committing
itself to the installation of a single well, but to whatever
wells are required to meet the terms in Agreement #77-07 W.B.
The Olcese proposal to install one well initially this year
was discussed and approved by John Chafin at a meeting held
at the Water Department on June 10, 1981, ~hich was attended
by Mr. Chafin, myself, Gene Bogart, Tom Clark and consulting
engineers for the City.
5. Getting back to participation of other districts
and entities in the City's spreading area, I am informed that
there will be a City Water and Growth Committee meeting on July
24th for the purpose of discussing with the Agency its
participation on behalf of itself and its Member Units in the
City spreading area. This is to request that representatives
of OtCese be permitted to participate in this July 24th
meeting. Because Olcese has direct involvement in the improve-
ment programs on the 2800 acres, it would seem appropriate that
Olcese should be represented. In that connection, I would like
you to know that I endorse the George Nickel Plan submitted
to you under date of July 20th.
Sincerely,
Mel McColloch, President
Olcese Water District
~/sg
c: George W. Nickel, Jr.
Gordon Ricks
Tom Clark
Ref. File: 1275-E-m
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF WATER ~ ~~
July 14, 1981_
Mel McColloch, President
Olcese Water District
1415 - 18th Street, Room 302
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. McColloch:
This letter is in response to your letter of June 15, 1981
regarding Olcese Water District's obligations per Agreement
No. 77-07 W.B., as amended.
The City's present agreement with'Olcese District requires
Olcese to furnish a schedule of all developments, including
plans for spreading and extraction improvements, to the City.
As you know, under the contract, Olcese is also required to
construct all necessary improvements.
Your letter in effect provides for no further development of
any spreading facilities and provides for the construction of
a single well adjacent to the River Canal "in the very near
future."
The City does not consider your June 15, 1981 letter to be an
adequate delineation of the required schedule for the improve-
ment and development of the necessary spreading and extraction
facilities. Pursuant to Paragraph C of Article I of Agreement
No. 77-07 W.B., as amended, the City will provide you, in due
course, with an augumented plan which will, in all likelihood,
incorporate one of the alternatives set forth in the Ricks,
Taylor & Associates Optimizations Study for the 2,800-Acre
Groundwater Recharge Area dated March 1981, a copy of which
has previously been provided to you. A more explicit outline
of all developments and improvements will be required. It is
essential that any activity on the 2,800 acres engaged in by
Olcese be coordinated with the City and its overall plan.
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 · (605) 861-2715
~e! McColloch
Pa~e Two
Olcese must keep in mind that it has never been the intention
of the City to minimally utilize the spreading facility. The
intention is to develop a plan which will optimize the untili-
zation of this resource, for not only the City but others in-
cluding the Olcese District. It is not possible to optimally
use the 2,800 acres with sand dikes and one well. Any improve-
ments constructed by Olcese must be part of and consistent
with an overall development plan, and that is why the relevant
language was included in the Agreement. Whatever facilities
are constructed which are utilizable by your District for
spreading purposes, must appropriately be charged to yOu.
It is the present intention of the City to underwrite the
initial costs of the long-term, shared spreading facilities,
subject to reimbursement by using entities such as Olcese.
Given the fact that the long-term facilities will be usable
by others, it will be necessary to work out equitable finan-
cial arrangements with your District for those long-term~
facilities whose use you will share. To that end, it is the
present intention of the City to amortize the cost of these
facilities over a ten-year period and charge each entity
which utlilizes the spreading facilities an equitable portion
of that cost. We will also be working out similar arrangements
with other entities, when they indicate a desire to participate,
for lump sum annual fees to defray these costs. These will be
in addition to O & M costs, which should be radically reduced
as a result of the construction of long-term facilities, and
appropriate spreading or extraction fees.
It is not our desire to delay your construction of the first
well. To this end, the Water Board hereby approved construc-
tion of a well in the northwest corner of Section 16, Township
30, Range 26 East, adjacent to the River Canal, subject to the
following conditions:
1; Precise location and specific plans and specifica-
tions for the well are to be submitted to and approved by
City's Water Manager prior to construction.
2. All construction and inspections shall be subject
to the supervision of the Water Department.
3. Olcese shall acknowledge its willingness to parti-
cipate financially in the construction of whichever alterna-
tive plan or modification thereof by Ricks, Taylor & Associates,
Inc. is approved by the Water Board on an equitable basis and
agree to negotiate in good faith to determine the appropriate
amount.
~e! McColloch
Pag~ Three
If the above is acceptable, you may proceed with a submission
of the plans and specifications for the well. If you have
any questions, please contact Mr. Chafin.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF~BAKERSFIELD
James J. Barton, Chairman
Water Board
JJB:lh
cc: Thomas M. Stetson
Stanley C. Hatch, Esq.
, , MAINLINE EXTENSION AGREEMENTS
REVISED REFUND COSTS
Water Agreement Agreement Number
'Board Tract or Refund Refund of
Number Developer Parcel Map Estimated Actual Services
79-27 Regional Mortgage TR 3916 $49,127.00 $48,441.54 37
79-28 Regional Mortgage TR 4016 $62,640.00 $52,420.17 44
*80-20 .Casa Linda Inc. TR 3827 Unit C $34,128.00 $28,933.38 34
/
.*'80-21 Casa Linda Inc. TR 3827 Unit D $32,760.00 $29,690.89 58
80--34 Tenneco TR 4219 $89,405,68 $77,752.89 86
80-37 Tenneco TR 4276 ...$116,961.37 $83,780.74 45
80-47 Tenneco PM 5714 $56,027.66 $48,551.74 176
80-48 Tenneco TR 4277 Unit 3 $47,845.43 $43,191.91 61
80-49 Tenneco TR 4277 Unit 7 $49,205.41 $42,710.33 59
81-03 Tenneco TR 4277 Unit 6 $36,897.06 $32,719.82 46
81-06 Tenneco TR 4.277 Unit S $51,204.84 $46,539.72 64
81-07 Tenneco TR 4277 Unit 1 $50,988.01 $33,787.56 13
81-08 Tenneco ~ 4277 Unit 4 $47,529.47 $41,119.71 48
*To be reassigned from "Casa Linda Inc." to "Neptune Investment Company" to'~s. Jacqueline
Jamison" at P.O. Box 323, Chico California 95926.
**To be reassigned from "Casa Linda Inc." to "Neptune Investment Company" to "Charles V. King"
at 1425 Foxworthy Avenue, San Jose, California 95118.
~ ~.. NEW MAINLINE EXTENSION AGREEMENTS
TRACT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER
" OR REFUND REFUND OF
DEVELOPER. PARCEL ~P ESTImaTED ACTUAL SERVICES
Tenneco TR 4221 $43,582.95 $42,632.43 45
TR 4277 Unit 2 23,!05.46 23,105.46 17
TR 4277 Unit 8 59,556.04 56,294.87 61
PM S701 50,749.00 45,939.74 4
TR 4364 35,973.30 26,920.S0 22
TR 4356 81,057.78 72,663.87 95
TR 4363 45,242.91 69
TR 4289 46,424.47 71
PM 5337 7,360.03 7,360.03 3
TOTAL $393,051.94 387
~ ~ )~J, ~<~ ~' ~ ~ L ~"~ CALIFORNIA
July 14, 1981
Mel McColloch, President
Olcese Water District
1415 - 18th Street, Room 302
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. McColloch:
This letter is in response to your letter of June 15, 1981
regarding Olcese Water District's obligations per Agreement
No. 77-07 W.B., as amended.
The City's present agreement with Olcese District requires
Olcese to furnish a schedule of all developments, including
plans for spreading and extraction improvements, to the City.
As you know, under the contract, Olcese is also required to
construct all necessary improvements.
Your letter in effect provides for no further development of
any spreading facilities and provides for the construction of
a single well adjacent to the River Canal "in the very near
future."
The City does not consider your June 15, 1981 letter to be an
adequate delineation of the required schedule for the improve-
ment and development of the necessary spreading and extraction
facilities. Pursuant to Paragraph C of Article I of Agreement
No. -77-07 W.B., as amended, the City will provide you, in due
course, with an augumented plan which will, in all likelihood,
incorporate one .of the alternatives set forth in the Ricks,
Taylor & Associates Optimizations Study for the 2,800-Acre
Groundwater Recharge Area dated March 1981, a copy of which
has previously been provided to you. A more explicit outline
of all developments and improvements will be required. It is
essential that any activity on the 2,800.acres engaged in by
Olcese be coordinated with the City and its overall plan.
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 · {805) 861-2715
Mel McColloch
Page Two
Olcese must keep in mind that it has never been the intention
of the City to minimally utilize the spreading facility. The
intention is to develop a plan which will optimize the untili-
zation of this resource, for not only the City but others in-
cluding the Olcese District. It is not possible to optimally
use the 2,800 acres with sand dikes and one well. Any improve-
ments constructed by Olcese must be part of ~and consistent
with a~ overall development plan, and that is why the relevant
language was included in the Agreement. Whatever facilities
are constructed which are utilizable by your District for
spreading purposes, must appropriately be charged to you.
It is the present intention of the City to underwrite the
initial costs of the long-term, shared spreading facilities,
subject to reimbursement by using entities such as Olcese.
Given the fact that the long-term facilities will be usable
by others, it will be necessary to work out equitable finan-
cial arrangements with your District for those long-term
facilities whose use you will share. To that end, it is the
present intention of the City to amortize the cost of these
facilities over a ten-year period and charge each entity
which utlilizes the spreading facilities an equitable portion
of that cost. We will also be working out similar arrangements
with other entities, when they indicate a desire to participate,
for lump sum annual fees to defray these costs. These will be
in addition to O & M costs, which should be radically reduced
as a result of the construction of long-term facilities, and
appropriate spreading or extraction fees.
It is not our desire to delay your construction of the first
well. To this end, the Water Board hereby approved construc-
tion of a well in the northwest corner of Section 16, Township
30, Range 26 East, adjacent to the River Canal, subject to the
following conditions:
1~ Precise location and specific plans and specifica-
tions for the well are to be submitted to and approved by
City's Water Manager prior to construction.
2. All construction and inspections shall be subject
to the supervision of the Water Department.
3. Olcese shall acknowledge its willingness to parti-
cipate financially in the construction of whichever alterna-
tive plan or modification thereof by Ricks, Taylor & Associates,
Inc. is approved by the Water Board on an equitable basis and
agree to negotiate in good faith to determine the appropriate
amount.
Mel McColloch
Page Three
If the above is acceptable, you may proceed with a submission
of the plans and specifications for the well. If you have
any questions, please contact Mr. Chafin.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
James J. Barton, Chairman
Water Board
JJB:lh
cc: Thomas M. Stetson
Stanley C. Hatch, Esq.
ROSEDALE RIO BRAVO
--- \ / '
~23"F" St., ~ite L~ P.O. Box 867 · Bake~field, ~lifornia 93302 · 3254797
JUL 1 lg~
~EP~M~ OF
City of Bakersfield Water Board
4101 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Gentlemen:
Re: Proposed Master Spreading Agreement
Thank you for the recent draft of the proposed Master Spreading Agreement
for the City and other'entities. We are presently reviewing this document
along with copies of correspondence between the City and those who have
contracted with the City in regard to the operation of the City's spreading
works. We are hopeful that a master agreement which will provide a satisfactory
use of the groundwater basin by all overlying entities can be developed. We
believe you share a like desire.
Upon review of the aQreements, there are still several Questions which are
raised, and we are at this time formalizing those Questions and will present
them to you in the very near future.
In the past, vou indicated your willingness to set up a meeting(s) so that
this matter can be fully explored by all interested parties. We are hopeful
you will proceed to do so. We will look forward to hearing from you on the same.
Very truly yours,
ROSEDALE-RIO BRAVO WATER STORAGE DISTRICT
Manager
cc/Each Di rector W. Palmer
D. Hardan
7-1-81
cc: Water Board (Full)
S. Hatch
T. Stetson
LAW
HATCH ,~D PARENT
STANLEY C. HATCt~ A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AREA CODE 805
S.TIMOTHY BUYNAK, JR. SANTA BARBARA, EALIFORNIA ~3102
OIAN~ N.~ATSIN~ May 20, 1981
Mr. John Chafin
Water Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California
Dear John:
Enclosed find a proposed modification of agreement
dealing with the hourly billing rate applicable to govern-
mental agencies represented by our firm. Effective July 1,
1981, senior attorneys will be billed at the rate of $105.00
per hour, member attorneys will be billed at the rate of
$95.00 per hour, and associate attorneys will be billed at
the rate of $90.00 Der hour.
The purpose of this change is to attempt to keep all
our governmental billings at approximately the same rate,
which we established in 1965 for governmental agencies,
corrected only for the effects of inflation.
We would appreciate your having the Water Board
consider and execute this modification by July 1, 1981.
STANLEY C. HATCH
For HATCH AND PARENT
SCH: ah
Enclosure
MODIFICATION OF .AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 1981,
by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a political subdivision
of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "Bakersfield",
and HATCH AND PARENT, a professional corporation of the State of
California, whose professional employees are duly qualified and
licensed to practice law in the State of California, hereinafter
referred to as "Attorney."
On October 5, 1978, Bakersfield and Attorney entered
into an Agreement, 78-14 W.B., for Attorney's services which
was amended by Agreement 80-02 W.B. June 25, 1980. The parties now
wish to amend that Agreen~.ent to read:
1. The Fourth Paragraph on the first page of Agreement
78-14 W.B. is amended to read:
"Attorney time shall be billed by Attorney and
paid by Bakersfield at the rate of ONE HUNDRED FIVE
DOLLARS ($105.00) per hour for senior.attorneys,
NINETY FIVE DOLLARS'($95.00) per hour for member
attorneys and NINETY DOLLARS ($90.00) per hour for
associate attorneys of the ~firm."
Ail other terms, conditions and provisions of 78-14 W.B.
is amended by 80-02 W.B. and shall remain unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Modification of Agreement on the date and year first above
written.
A Profe~io,~l CorDQration
ST~N~LE~ C. HATCH, President
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (WATER BOARD)
By
Jk~ES J. BARTON, Chairman,
City of Bakersfield Water Board